User talk:Jayy008/Archive 9

One Tree Hill (Season 9)
Hey I wonder. The infobox picture reads something but the letters are too small for me to read. By the whay is there any page wich show this kind of posters. For example similiar to Gossip Girl (Season 5) and 90210 (Season 4). Left4Deadseries FAN (talk) 18:30, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Are you kidding? I helps ALOT. Thank you. Left4Deadseries FAN (talk) 07:31, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Jayy, The James Lafferty quote you removed is quoted from E! Online, its been used in the article elsewhere, standards in terms of sources? Oh, and sorry for forgetting about source for the Kinston airport shoot.--Jakobalewis (talk) 13:06, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Chad/Lucas
Hey Jayy,

Just a quick question, can you give me the source that specifies Chad's episode count??

I hope its more than one ep!

B.Davis2003 (talk) 02:34, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Did you hear that Hilarie isn't coming back :( B.Davis2003 (talk) 02:48, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

One Tree Hill (TV series) article and GA status
Hey, Jayy008, I don't feel that this section you created but removed is inappropriate when aiming for GA (Good Article status). It's hardly any different than having a Cancellation section. Flyer22 (talk) 18:13, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Also, could you let me know before considering nominating this article for GA? I would want to tweak some things in the article and prepare myself before that. Flyer22 (talk) 18:14, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I mainly removed it as I thought all of that information is listed on the season 9 page, if people wanted to read everything about season 9, they could go there. But if its restored, I won't object, I will just make some changes. I will let you know before I nominate, I will be nominating Lucas Scott and Peyton Sawyer before then. What do you think about the news of Murray, Woods and Hiltons returns? Jayy008 (talk) 23:58, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure Lucas Scott or Peyton Sawyer could make GA, unless having more real-world impact. But maybe I'm wrong and their articles have enough. I just typically don't like the GA process -- having to do all these things that I may not even agree with just to please one editor. The same goes for the FA process, except its worse...with more editors. I mean, with the way I have the Lucas and Peyton articles set up, I don't feel anything needs to be changed. Like some huge downsizing of the plot that has already been downsized. Again, the only thing I'd add more of is real-world impact...if available.


 * I heard about Murray's return through the edit history of the article. I don't know what to make of his return. I mean, returning without Peyton? Uh oh, LOL. No, I'm sure he's not about to try and get Brooke back. Woods is probably coming back because Deb is needed? I haven't been watching. And Hilton always leaves and comes back. Flyer22 (talk) 00:54, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, well if you prefer I wouldn't nominate Scott and Sawyer, I won't. You've put so much work into them! Also as for Murray returning without Burton, I think the storyline works. Lucas returns to help Haley after Nathan is kidnapped, I don't think Lucas would want to bring Peyton or Sawyer into that situation. As for Deb, I hope they're bringing her back because they realize her exit was horrible last time, either way, I'm more happy about Woods. Jayy008 (talk) 18:05, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Like I stated, I'm just not sure about that status for those two articles. Especially Lucas Scott. At least Peyton Sawyer has more casting and creation detail. Maybe I'll feel less uneasy about it one day, if more real-world detail is added. Thanks for specifying why Lucas returns. No matter what Lucas would want, I believe Peyton would want to be there to lend support. But oh well. Obviously, the writers couldn't get Burton back. Again. Flyer22 (talk) 23:30, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * But here we go again! TVLine reported that they didn't ask Burton back, maybe they're still annoyed at her for not returning for Brooke's wedding? Everytime these two and One Tree Hill get mentioned, we never get all the details! Jayy008 (talk) 23:52, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, she is busy with her new show. So maybe that factored into them not asking her, if true? If she's not busy, then... Flyer22 (talk) 23:59, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * White Collar is finished filming now, so if they wanted her...? I guess we'll never know what happens with them two, but there is still time to ask them both back for the finale. I'm so hopeful of a series finale with all the main 5 and a 10-year reunion with Rachel, Jake, Bevin and co. But I guess that's too much to ask! Jayy008 (talk) 00:00, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

90210
Jayy,

Why revert the edit, it was perfectly relevant and reliable? B.Davis2003 (talk) 00:07, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Infobox colors
There isn't a guideline on such. Most of the time we just leave it as the defaulted color. The only times when I have seen a color change has been when the color is a thematical representation of the show (e.g., The Simpsons). Other than that, it's a preference thing and so long as it's not distracting when reading it should be a decision made by the community of editors that monitor that page.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  17:33, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * What exactly is not working? When I look at the page it looks fine.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  22:27, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Dodomh95
Hi! My name is Paul! I'm working on 90210 pages in Russian Wikipedia - I've just found out, that Annie Wilson page does exist in English project, but for some reasons that page titled User:Dodomh95. Can you give it character name? Thnx. --194.226.8.133 (talk) 18:24, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

N/A
I really don't know why it is doing that because it works in your other section. It's also not working in this talk page section.

N/A

I would should a message over to the template talk page and ask them what might be creating the problem.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  13:29, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Template talk:N/a. There ya go.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  13:38, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Re: Ringer
Ah, alright. LOL @ some random users putting the GA icon on the article. Haven't seen something like that before. Hoping to get the article to GA soon, so it would be good if we could work together on it (seeing as you have experience with TV articles - in which I don't have much). Anyways, how do you like the show? Personally, I cannot stop thinking about it. It's so damn good! — Status  &#x7B;talkcontribs  19:45, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No objections. :) Yeah, I feel the same way! It needs more info about casting, production, etc. Searching the web now... The plot needs some copy editing as well. — Status  &#x7B;talkcontribs  19:54, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * And yes. I'm pissed in the first place that it's even on The CW. And then they pair it with 90210? Like, really? 90210 and Gossip Girl should be paired, as they are very similar. Nikita and Ringer should be as well, same reason. She has a lot of fans, but they are killing it having it on a Tuesday night, following 90210. I swear to god if they end up cancelling the show... — Status  &#x7B;talkcontribs  19:56, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

90210
Hey, But should it be removed cause its now past tense?? Just trying to make the table look cleaner :) B.Davis2003 (talk) 23:37, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * While I agree it looks cleaner, only sources should be removed from the episode list... A table needs to be fully sourced whether the information has passed or not (I argued the rule before, but I lost), so sourcing stands. Jayy008 (talk) 10:51, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Jayy008 I just want to say thanks for your support in the Pan Am article! When ordering the cast, I SIMPLY ordered them how they were ordered after the first intro of episode 1, however the other users on that page insist on having it their way, which is a completely fan based opinion. Hang in there, we will prevail :P Only 3 months till OTH returns! :D B.Davis2003 (talk) 05:47, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

No, we are not insisting on "having it [our] way", we are looking to to do the best thing for the article based on accepted Wikipedia practice. Our opinions are not "fan based", either. Remember WP:AGF? If you've forgotten, you should both remember it. Because, frankly, your comments above, B. Davis2003, seem quite "rude, uncivil, [and very much like] a personal attack." Thanks. Lhb1239 (talk) 15:34, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * To be honest, after the user in the discussion started branding me things like "strident and rigid," I don't think coming here to express an opinion, not naming any user, is a problem. Jayy008 (talk) 15:38, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * So you're saying, "If someone else does it first, then it's okay to do it too (even if it's not something looked well upon by Wikipedia)"? Lhb1239 (talk) 15:41, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * What he's doing is taking something that was said on my talk page out of context, conveniently reinterpreting it, and using it to justify throwing civility and assumption of good faith out the window, fire groundless accusations around, and bludgeon us with imaginary "rules" without the first thought for what is best for the article. WP:AGF isn't even in the radar -- we've been tried and convicted on the basis of nothing more than his groundless suspicions.  What I think this is really about it getting some of his own back somehow, somewhere as a result of an unfavorable outcome following cast ordering issues on one of the other cast list articles (an entirely different beast than we're looking at here) where he's edited. What really troubles me is the whiff of canvassing and the win at all costs mentality I see in the comments above.  Drmargi (talk) 16:36, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I'm saying you're willing to overlook other things, worse. But if somebody comes on here and says something, without even usernames used, you're all on it straight away. Jayy008 (talk) 15:50, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No, certainly not "straight away". My comments came 10 hours after the original comments.  Regardless, there are accusations above that have already been dealt with on the article talk page, yet, in spite of both the other editor and I saying what we're being accused of is not the case, the accusations persist.  Hardly AGF and certainly not collegial and cooperative. And, since this is all going so well here, I might as well mention it now: you couldn't be accused of canvassing for consensus at the Pan Am article, could you? Lhb1239 (talk) 15:58, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

No, not really—I skimmed the page and saw what was appropriate and what wasn't—Asking for other users' opinions is allowed. I posted on the Project as it was the best place to ensure as many unbiased editors who are experienced in editing television articles would voice their opinion. The other two posts I made were on people's talk-pages as they popped up in my watch-list and I saw they was online and editing television. I'm afraid in my defense I'm allowed to defend myself when it comes to accusations the other editor accused me (to you) of ownership issues on a page I had never edited before. PS. I didn't check the dates, and I was purposely making an exaggerated statements when I said "straight away". Jayy008 (talk) 16:03, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

@Drmargi, I am interpreting it how it was meant - An insult. Also, I've explained the canvas things, which you have either chosen to not read or ignored just so you can continue writing whatever you want. Jayy008 (talk) 16:41, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

OTH News
Ar, how bad is this "news" because I still love One Tree Hill......B.Davis2003 (talk) 00:14, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Cast order
If the consensus is to put it in credit order then it needs to be edited that way. Now, I know they said "consensus is not a vote", but if it's an overwhelming majority then that is consensus. If a select group of editors refuses to accept the supposed consensus, then you will need to probably start an WP:RfC or request an Admin to overseas the discussion and make a final decision based on the responses (go to WP:DISPUTE to request such feedback).  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  00:37, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If they are not adhereing to the result of the RfC, then you would need to go to dispute resolution to have a neutral party come in and say "this is the decision". After that, if they still are not adhereing to the decision of the dispute resolution, you need to go Dispute resolution noticeboard.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  13:19, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Hey Jayy. Just wanted to offer a piece of advice. I know that the conversation about this issue has been really heated but from my perspective reading over the whole mess again, I don't think the direction the conversation has been going in most recently is helping any. I totally understand why you feel the way you do about the talk page comments between Lbh and Drmargi but 1) I seriously don't think they were intending to insult you (I really think their main concern is making the article useful to readers and that they felt you were more forceful than you felt you were) and 2) regardless of their intent, the way Wikipdia works, trying to call them out the way you have been isn't going to help.

Put another way, let's say for the sake of argument that you are 100% correct in your assessment of their conversation; the manner in which you've been trying to communicate your feelings about the matter may not be taken well by administrators or commenters who weigh in on the rfc that Drmargi requested (or those that you asked for at the tv project). I know sometimes that seems really unfair; it's totally natural to want to defend yourself when you feel you've been wrongly accused by someone. But I've seen it go down time and again around this place; third parties drop in for an rfc and things go pear shaped because someone got defensive, even if understandably so.

You've explained your reasoning for your preferred order; Lhb and Drmargi have done likewise. At this point all that all three of you are doing is discussing each others' intent. It's going to make it even more confusing for rfc commenters to make sense of it all when half of the arguments they are wading through have nothing to do with the content anymore. Take a breather, homie. Every time I get overinvested in something like this, when I take a break from the issue, I communicate much better. Wait for some rfc people to come in and respond to their questions or comments later. You'll feel better for it. And everyone will be better able to clarify any points that they need to for the third opinion peeps. In the long run this conversation WILL make the article better no matter how rfc turns out, and it will help improve the TV MOS as well. Millahnna (talk) 17:35, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much for all of that. I agree completely. That's why I took the time to reach out to LHB, and posted a message on the users talk-page, I don't know if it was appropriate practice or not, but the user has remained impartial when Dmargi attempts to add a more personal tone to the posts on her userpage. It was only really the "I'm beginning to piece together what I think this is really about, but need a bit of foundation before I say anything further." that annoyed me, like I have a sinister plan I'm working on that accusing me of telling people to join the conversation off-Wiki. I don't like getting heated but I don't want admins to actually think I'm canvassing off Wikipedia because I've been accused of doing so? I will take all of that on board—for now and future reference—in my dealing with article disputes, this one included. I will take a step back now and won't post on the article talk-page until after a third-party interest has left their opinion. Again, thank you for taking the time and effort to explain all of that to me. Jayy008 (talk) 17:49, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Here's another way to look at Drmargi's comment. Go back to my point above where I guess that they felt you were more forceful than you felt you were being.  The same thing might be true in reverse here.  I totally get taking that comment the way you took it.  If it were me, I would almost certainly take it that way.  But it's also possible that Drmargi genuinely thought there might be something fishy going on for whatever reason.  Think about it; you've totally run into those situations where the manner in which someone presented an argument made you instantly question what was going on with them, right?  Add in wildly differing communication styles and any misinterpretations that have stemmed from same and you've got a recipe for a nice wiki-molotov-cocktail.


 * Drmargi likely saw that you and Bignole were in communication as you tried to get policy clarification for the process at large; if they felt pushed around by other editors on your side of the conversation their supicions may already have been raised just due to their interpretation of your phrasing (collective you). He/she probably didn't realize I came in by happenstance because I saw your rfc at the tv project when I was leaving my own for the Dexter Morgan article.  Throw in the fact that we erroneously thought the MOS was more clear on cast order, and, well, here we are. Mind you I'm never this rational when I'm the one in a heated discussion so take everything I say with a grain of panic. :D  Millahnna (talk) 18:07, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * LOL, well you're rationally enough to make me look over all my actions and try my best to look at things from other peoples' point of view too. Thanks for the clarifications. I hope the situation can be resolved soon. Jayy008 (talk) 19:13, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Help
Please help me understand how you came to the conclusion that the new edits (including those that had references attached to them) at the H8R article were "vandalism". Thanks. Lhb1239 (talk) 17:34, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Annie Wilson (90210 character)
Why is it not aloud then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rui78901 (talk • contribs) 21:24, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Then if this page isn't aloud, then why is there pages for nearly every glee character? Like Sam Evans, Lauren Zizes and Holly Holliday, some of them are only recurring characters/Guest stars and Sam isn't even it anymore. but, I'm not aloud to create a page for a character who has been a main character for four seasons, for four years. Discrimination! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rui78901 (talk • contribs) 21:43, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, the article I edited created ticked every box. Annie killed a man, was shunned by her friends, stalked by the man she killed's Nephew, was involved in a love triangle with her boyfriend and his brother, was being single white female by her physico cousin, dealing with her parents divorce, caring for an elderly lady who later commited suicide, was proposed to by her boyfriend, later rejected him, was falling for some stranger who turned out to be a family member for the elderly ladies family who was fighting for her will to be change, so she couldn't get anything, then becomes an escort to try and pay her college tuition's. If that's not character development, then I dont know what is. But, somehow a glee character who is prancing around singing has more character development? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rui78901 (talk • contribs) 21:57, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

You could of warned me that you were deleting the article. I would off added more stuff to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rui78901 (talk • contribs) 22:02, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Status changer
Sorry for the late reply -  I didn't see your further note until  I  was archiving  my  long  talk  page. I'ts semi automatic. It does not  work  when you  log  on  or off because many  users, like me, are permanently  logged in -  that's  the reason for the changer. If you  install  the script and clear the browser cache, you  will  then see a row of  links on  the very  top  of your user and talk pages:  online, busy,  around, offline, sleep. if you click  on  one of those, it  will  open  a page with  the new status. Just close the page. The next time you  open  your user or talk  page you  will  see that  the status has changed. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:26, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! Jayy008 (talk) 17:24, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit summaries
this is your only warning from me regarding your recent edit summaries containing personal attacks--Lhb1239 (talk) 20:31, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You describing me as not using good faith, is no different to be describing you as badfaith. If you would like to take it further, I'm happy for that, also. That's not a warning, that's ridiculous, pointless message on my talk-page. Jayy008 (talk) 20:39, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Hey
Hey Jamie, nice to hear from you. Thanks for the watch, but I trust Mark's (Efe) edits 100%. I took a look and he just tweaked the wording etc. Thanks! BTW, have you seen the commercial for her interview where she reveals dem babies? :D-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   01:18, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

October 2011
Please stop edit warring at the article Hart of Dixie. Your reversion of perfectly good edits (not under scrutiny, by the way) are disruptive and seem to be based on WP:POINT. If you continue in this vein, I will be forced to take this activity - along with what is starting to seem like harassment on my talk page and at articles I am editing and previous civility behaviors - to an administrator's noticeboard. I really don't want to have to do that. Please reconsider what you're doing and how it is disruptive to the project. Lhb1239 (talk) 18:44, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I have already reported the matter to an admin, you have broken the WP:3RR (reverting my edits three times in 24 hours) based on WP:POINT yourself. It's extremely rude to constantly delete things off your talk-page and refuse discussion. You only revert my edits on a page that you don't even watch-list (you see an edit I've made and seek out the page hoping to revert_. I reverted only based on restoring the original version of the page, before disagreement. And my edits have only been made based on a good article. Jayy008 (talk) 18:47, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Hart of Dixie is on my watchlist (along with 600+ other articles), it's my prerogative to delete your comments from my talk page, you're once again not using WP:AGF ("you only revert my edits...", etc., etc.), and just because an article has been put at GA status does not mean that it's perfect, cannot be improved upon, and doesn't contain errors. Lhb1239 (talk) 18:53, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Then it's your opinion vs. my opinion and I brought it up for discussion to get others opinion on the matter, so I restored the page to original—which is the only thing I've ever seen in a disagreement—to wait for consensus. You do, only revert mine. All the pages in my watch-list (Aside from "Pan Am"), you had never edited and suddenly, after a disagreement with me, you're "watch-listing" them. You haven't edited at all, only reverted my edits. Describing your own edits as "perfectly good" is the same for me, I too think they're good, which is why I brought it up for discussion. But your WP:OWN issues will not allow you to continue a discussion if you are not willing to back-down on the issue (using wording from BOLD, revert, discuss cycle). Why did you say "you are now at 3RR," in your edit summary, when you have already broken it? Jayy008 (talk) 18:57, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, in the construct of grammar and word usage, it's my opinion. That opinion, however, happens to be shared by numerous published dictionaries.  For example, the usage of the word "however" is misunderstood by many, if not most, Americans and is used improperly here in Wikipedia frequently.  I've found it misused at more than one article that has achieved GA status.  Does that mean that because it has been used improperly at a GA that it shouldn't be changed or that it should continue to be used improperly at other articles?  Of course not.  As far your claim that I haven't edited the Hart of Dixie article - you are incorrect.  Look at the edit history.  Edits I have made to that article have by-and-large had nothing to do with your edits whatsoever.  Reverting perfectly good edits to illustrate a point is disruptive to the article and the community.  If you want to insist on making the use of the word "portrays" an issue and subject of discussion at the article talk page, then do that.  But don't think wholesale reverting of perfectly good edits that contribute to and improve the article is an okay thing to do.  It's not.  I've seen editors blocked for such behavior.  Surely you don't want to go there, do you?  I was making you aware of 3RR as a reminder, nothing more.  Lhb1239 (talk) 19:12, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * What's more, you have no basis for your uncivil accusation of ownership on my part. If you have solid evidence, please post it.  If now, I'd appreciate you striking that comment altogether. Lhb1239 (talk) 19:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I've been blocked many times before, I'm not ashamed of it and I'm happy I can look back at my mistakes and admit them. Of course things can change. But, in my opinion, "as" shouldn't be used in prose. So, why wouldn't you allowed the article to stay in its original state until a discussion was up and running? It seems you were the one who began the reversions to make a WP:POINT. I will obviously not be reverting again within the next 24 hours as I will likely receive a block, but may I make you aware, you've broken the 3RR. Jayy008 (talk) 19:16, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

You've been blocked before? When? The block log associated with your account doesn't indicate that. Is Jayy008 your only account here or were you blocked under another account? Lhb1239 (talk) 19:24, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's expired (I don't know if that happens). OR it could be my old account, User talk:jayy009, as you can see, I haven't used it for years. Jayy008 (talk) 19:47, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Please reply at the bottom, whatever you're replying to. You have made those accusations before, but obviously that's okay. Either way, I have reported the situation to an admin, which you'll likely be blocked for your WP:3RR breaking. Any others issues I will address at a later time. Jayy008 (talk) 19:53, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Pan Am
Regarding this edit, WP:N actually applies to entire articles. It's a test to see whether a subject can have its own article. It doesn't really apply to content within the article. Using primary sources is actually permitted by No original research. No original research provides that "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them" Using the RTE website simply to prove that it airs Pan Am is acceptable. If the claim in the article had been that it only airs on RTE Two, that would not have been acceptable. WP:THIRDPARTY says that articles "must be based upon verifiable statements from multiple third-party reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", but that doesn't exclude the use of primary sources. --AussieLegend (talk) 19:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Without looking up anything (too busy currently), so all channels can be listed? No matter how long it gets? Everything I could link is for an article as a whole it seems. I will have a look soon for some others. Thanks. Jayy008 (talk) 19:09, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Subject to WP:NOT, there's nothing stopping the listing of channels in foreign markets. That said, this is unacceptable in my opinion. Most of the table content is okay, although it needs sources (which I've addressed here), but content such as "Aired daily at 12:00 pm, 7:30 pm and 12:00 am. Last episode of Season 8 aired on April 5, 2011" is over the line. This is much better. --AussieLegend (talk) 19:29, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow, that 2.5 Men table is a mess! Regarding the second one... Surely listing every single country the show airs in isn't notable. But thanks for showing me the variation between the two. Jayy008 (talk) 19:46, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Hart of Dixie
It just depends. If you choose the "Actor as Character" route then it needs to end in a colon, because "John as Gary" is not a complete sentence. If you use a colon then it becomes a more appropriate structure for the listing. Looking at the page and the disagreement, this is my opinion: There is no restriction on how "portray" is used. It can be used to indicate real people or fictional people. It just means to act out the role of another individual. There is no problem with using "portray" or even the "Actor as Character" approach. The only difference is that if you use the "Actor as Character" approach it needs to be with a colon, because using a period indicates that you're treating it like a sentence. If that was the case it would be the most unprofessional sentence structure you could have. But, if you use the "Actor as Character" approach, then they all need to be that way. It cannot be a mixed bag of every approach to listing the cast. So, there just needs to be an agreement on which approach to use and then stick with it. If you want a complete sentence approach, then "Actor as Character" isn't the best option. If you just want to list the cast and then write a prose bit afterward, then use the "Actor as Character" technique. You can also bypass it all and use the "Character (Actor)" approach and just write it out from the start.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  20:05, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * "There is no restriction on how "portray" is used." Not as far as policy goes, but there is as restriction/policy on the grammatically incorrect usage of words in article (which was why I changed to word to begin with).  "Portray", when used properly, indicates someone is giving a representation of a real-life, not fictional, character.  You can't portray someone that isn't real.  Fictional characters are "played", real people are "portrayed". As I stated previously to Jayy008 more than once (on my talk page as well as here and at the article), I removed "portray" because the word is being used incorrectly. He chose to start (and continue) an edit war by reverting all of my edits wholesale, while claiming it was because of the word "portray".  Lhb1239 (talk) 20:14, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd like to know where you're pulling that usage definition from, becuase I've never seen it stated that you are restricted from using it with fictional characters. If you can show me an official grammatical rule on this, I'd be happy to change my mind about it. "Play" to me has always been an unprofessional term used more with children to denote acting. As I stated above, if you're going to use the "Actor as Character" approach you need to use a colon, otherwise you're insinuating that you've got a sentence and "John Doe as Franklin Bash." does not a complete sentence make. It's a statement, it's not a sentence. There's no complete thought, which means it isn't a sentence.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  20:34, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * What in the world can you possibly be referring to when you say, "an official grammatical rule on this"? There's no "rule" about using the word other than taking the very definition of the word "portray" and applying it correctly.  People misuse words all the time because they don't understand its meaning, intent, or correct usage.  This is one of those words (another is "however" and how it is misused - one of my personal pet-peeves in Wikipedia). Lhb1239 (talk) 20:51, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * That is exactly my point. I've never even read a definition of "portray" that restricted it to just instances of "real life" people. I've seen plenty of examples of it used in definition pages to illustrate how to use the word. So, I'm not sure where this definition of it being restricted to just "real people" is coming from. That is why I asked. Can I at least ask where you're getting your particular definition of "portrayal" from?   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  22:33, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * From various dictionaries. Lhb1239 (talk) 01:25, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I have nothing to add to this conversation. Thanks Bignole for getting back to me, though. I have made a few changes, but I'm not interested in fighting the "as" "portray" thing, it's too stressful. Jayy008 (talk) 18:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Television
Why did you revert two edits even WikiProject Television/Friends exists.?--nijil (talk) 19:30, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The Vampire Diaries characters
Why should it be what you want it to be? She's recurring for she appeared in multiple episodes and in multiple seasons and was credited for all her appearances. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.86.24.28 (talk) 13:39, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't base it on who I like best, I base on the amount op episodes and seasons someone is credited in. She was credited in multiple season in over four episodes, making her a recurring character. She went when Damon broke up with her in the nineteenth episode of season two and returned in the season three premiere and thus didn't appear in only one story line as guest stars do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.86.24.28 (talk) 13:48, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 90210 (season 3)
The article 90210 (season 3) you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:90210 (season 3) for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:27, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

List of 90210 characters
Please explain to me why Tracy Clark, Dana Bowen, Sasha, Oscar, Charlie Shelby and Ian are recurring characters if they only had a guest arc that occurred during half a season? and why then Jeffrey and Colleen Sarkossian and Katherine Upton are guest stars, although they popped up during an entire season? JWHolland (talk) 10:30, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

RfC at Hart of Dixie
There is a current RfC at the Hart of Dixie talk page. You are being notified because you have commented in the past on this article. Lhb1239 (talk) 20:42, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources
If you look through the Reliable Sources Noticeboard archives, you'll see that the various discussions citing TVByTheNumbers have never agreed upon whether or not it is a reliable source. However, the opinions tend to fall more toward it being classed as reliable. There has never been discussion on TVLine but I don't see it as not being reliable. --AussieLegend (talk) 17:37, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It was failed in GA because they said the site looks "dubious" I don't see how TVbytheNumbers can even be discussed. It's the only place online that reveals final numbers and it's never been wrong, to my knowledge. Jayy008 (talk) 18:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Re: ABC Studios
I watched the closing credits of an episode on the CW website. The ABC Studios vanity card was shown along with the other production companies. I mostly watch the episodes through torrents, where the closing credits are cut out most of the time.  Quasy Boy  17:22, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, Deadline is pretty reliable. Hmm, I don't know, if ABC Studios doesn't produce the show anymore why would the ABC Studios vanity card still be shown at the end. The studio could of had a change of heart or Deadline maybe jumped the gun with that info.  Quasy Boy  17:29, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep, We'll see.  Quasy Boy  17:56, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Reliable source
Do you know whether or not TV.com is considered a reliable source in Wikipedia? Lhb1239 (talk) 20:13, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I think there's a discussion for it below the one I made for TVbytheNumbers. In my opinion, I don't like it, unless it has exclusive interviews. Jayy008 (talk) 16:57, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Pages
Fine do whatever you whant I dont't care. God. It's not like we'll die from reverting pages. But Okay if thats what you whant I wont help anyone with page that has anything to do with 90210 or anything like it it. Happy. --Left4Deadseries FAN (talk) 18:03, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Dude seriusly? You watch Gossip Girl? I do to and it is my favorite show. I wish every characters page was like that. Or atleast like Clear Rivers. Well Annie Wilson's page was okay I guess so the reason it was deleted it was because it didn't have many references right? Well I did ad something inf the Final Destination 3 page and I also wrote where I found the information, when and when it was writen. If you whant me to do that to other pages I will try and do it. --Left4Deadseries FAN (talk) 18:09, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Life Unexpected episode pages
Thank you for merging the season pages back to one page. I was going to do myself sometime this week. :)  Quasy Boy  20:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool. :)  Quasy Boy  20:41, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Ratings
You know what, I wonder if the rankings are using the +7 as well, because the "202" placement has a figure that is higher than the "SAME DAY" figure from the second source. Given that the ranking indicates that it uses repeats (and shows that it is including 8 extra episodes), that figure would assumingly be lower than the SAME DAY figure from the second source. Given that it isn't, I wonder if they are using the final figures, which are not released until a week later because of the +7 statistic that cannot be calculated until 7 days later. Does that make sense?  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  21:41, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * So, how would you like to handle it? I'm ok with using the source with the ranking and the reruns for all of it. I'm also ok with using both (and indicating that the final rankings for shows is based on the inclusion of repeated episodes during the television season).   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  17:44, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

List of One Tree Hill Characters.
Hey Jayy, Hows things?? Looking forward to OTH returning next year!? I AM! Anyways, what I'm writing about is your view on the OTH Characters page, I don't remember your reasons for not allowing tables like this... Gilmore Girls (please scroll down to the characters section :) B.Davis2003 (talk) 06:22, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Gossip Girl (season 4)
The article Gossip Girl (season 4) you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Gossip Girl (season 4) for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:10, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of One Tree Hill (season 8)
The article One Tree Hill (season 8) you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:One Tree Hill (season 8) for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:55, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Lists
Articles on seasons of television shows are considered class=list. The Gossip Girl (season 4) you have worked on is very similar to Featured Lists such as 30 Rock (season 4) and The O.C. (season 4). You should nominate the article at Featured list candidates for a review. maclean (talk) 21:20, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Basically, because there is no one in charge of Good Articles. No one vets incoming nominations and few reviews are double-checked. You happened to get a very experienced reviewer who knows the system well and thought it should be classed as a list. The distinction between a list and an article is not clear and, in my opinion, has gotten increasingly fuzzier. It used to be that list articles were just lists, but then people added more and more prose so now we have these half-prose/half-lists. But as you can see from Featured lists past practice has been to review them at WP:FLC. I did a small copyedit of the Gossip Girl (season 4). Before you nominate it, go over the prose. I found several places where the future tense was used, as if the season hadn't already aired. maclean (talk) 20:36, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I have my opinion on "television seasons"-articles, but I've never been active at WikiProject Television/Episode coverage. —maclean (talk) 20:22, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of One Tree Hill (TV series)
The article One Tree Hill (TV series) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:One Tree Hill (TV series) for things which need to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:55, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Jayy, I'm stopping by to let you know that I was able to get a copyeditor for this article. See User talk:September88 Flyer22 (talk) 10:52, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:MichaelNikita.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:MichaelNikita.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a template, along with your question, beneath this message.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 06:41, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

My Sincere Wishes For This Festive Season
You are welcome my friend. And I am very happy to hear that. Jivesh 1205 (Talk) 16:43, 21 December 2011 (UTC)